It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"A secret space" is a wonderfully insightful film for all CT's.

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 05:56 PM
I will just say that this film is a perfect compilation of many paraoxical events in our nations history, which paints a disturbing picture of Nazism and our present day association to the Third Reicht.

Please check it out, I am intereted for the buffs here to give their opinions. Thanks,



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 07:56 PM
Another super conspiracy theory eh? A lot of people are free masons, not because they want to, but because... *drumroll* ...they're born into it and just do it for fun. I'm sure all they do is sit around and drink beer much like the simpsons parody.

There WAS an interesting bit in this movie though. As a 25 year old person who lives in the year 20006, and has seen a Lot of special effect in his life I can't help notice that the following scene looks too fake. At about 1:21:10 you can see the lunar lander from behind doing some turn maneuvers, but from my view they look far too artificial, kinda like how they used to animate dinosaurs in old movies, using clay, shooting a frame, then reshaping the clay and shooting another frame. The movements look way too sudden, and the 'stop' maneuvers are seemingly instantaneous. Can anyone confirm that this is supposed to be real or if it's just something that the makers decided to put there to make it seem fake?

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 09:04 AM
Can anyone please comment on what I just said?

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 09:15 AM
Sorry Drexon but I have never seen the film before but i'll try and watch it and give my comments ASAP.

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 11:48 AM
David Icke is in a lot of it so take it with a grain of salt. It seems to just repeat a lot of far out unproven theories as gospel without adding anything new.

He mentions the NAZI's a lot and I have to wonder if he is following Joseph Goebbels old axim " A Lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth" ?

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 03:13 PM
Just to make things clear I'm not in any way agreeing with what's said in the 'film'. Just fast forward to 1:21:10 and tell me if you think it looks fake. Also Google video doesn't need you to buffer the entire movie just to see that, you can simply fast forward to that point in the film and you'll be able to see it right away.

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 07:17 PM

It does move a little awkward, considering the weightlessness of space. The moves look abrupt, but I'm no expert.


posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 07:28 PM

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreationI'm no expert.

Me neither.. but it still looks very weird to me.. like it's faked. =/

posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 01:03 PM
There are numerous reasons to be skeptical of the ideas and theories presented in this "documentary" that to me seems more or less like propoganda. The connections made are non cohesive, the documentary goes off on tangents, the director/author uses speculation as fact and presents a one sided view that only supports his argument.

First off, this is the second documentary I have watched that was posted on ATS, the first was a conspiracy theory about how the WTC was a controlled demoltion, which was a truly mind boggling documentary. The reason I mention this is so that we can compare the two.
First off, the WTC documentary presented neutral evidence from neutral sources, unlike this "documentary" which only offers the views of people who agree with the director, and therefore testimony from bias sources. The WTC documentary used scientific evidence as fact rather than this which uses speculation as fact. The WTC documentary invites one to come to a conclusion based on the facts, while this documentary jams theories down your throat. The WTC was very cohesive with direct and definite connections, while "A Secret Space" had vague connections, and lacked any sort of real conclusion.

Without doing much research, mis presentation of the facts in "A Secret Space" is appartent.
For example, the documentary asserts that the Nazi war machine was funded by banks in England and the United States. Well, anyone who has taken a high school history class can tell you that Germany borrowed money from the U.S and England after WWI as a way to fund reparations it owed. This cold hard fact, however, remains unaccounted for in the documentary.

My point: Information was manipulated throughout the DVD to support the directors claim rather than the truth. "A secret space", to me, seems like a bunch of theories jumbled together aimed at awing the viewer rather than concentrating on the facts.

What really gets me is how the documentary presents "Undoubtable" evidence (Which was really just the opinion of a few select experts that agree with the director and a replica of the moon that supposedly was used to stage the moon landings) that is aimed at concluding the moon landing were a hoax. After the director (tries to) establishes that we in fact, did not land on the moon, he goes into some sort of theory that Armstrong performed a satanic ritual on the moon. The documentary shows Armstrong with a supposed mason flag in one of the pictures of the moon landings as evidence. This made me laugh, the pictures of the moonlanding which the director claims were fake are now used as evidence to support his claim. Furthermore, if he claims that the moon landing was a hoax, then why does he speculate that Armstrong planted a masonic flag on the moon after the American flag? I thought we didn't land on the moon. Why does "A Secret Space" use the recording of the transmission to quote "The eagle has landed" to speculate that Armstrong had just planted the Masonic Flag, when just about ten minutes earlier he claims the whole landing film and transmission was staged?

My point being, if you claim that we did not land on the moon why do you immediatley thereafter speculate as to what Armstrong did on the moon?

The whole segment on aliens was fascinating, but how does that contribute to his main thesis. A lot of the footage was interesting, but in my opinion only added to awe the viewer and make take away from the fact that the documentary as a whole was very non cohesive. The director makes no clear,definant connections, only uses testimony from biased sources, uses speculation as fact and therefore can only be seen as speculation.

Am I saying that all ideas depicted are entirely untrue? NO. All I am doing is "Denying Ignorance" by stating my opinion as to the miselading way the documentary was put together and pointing out the lack of cold hard evidence.

posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 03:21 PM
Think about it,

You make some great points about the video being one sided, I agree with you there, but I fail to see how this makes certain parts of the film any less believable. The space tether for instance, or the orbs trailing behind the shuttle that form what appears to be a star shaped symbol, or the objects gathering above the electrical storm. All of these things in and of themselves leave me scratching my head
Regardless of whatever else the video says, I would love some logical answers to those things which I saw, none of which NASA's I believe. So instead of foucussing in this thread on what can be explained and debunked, lets focus on what can't and try to find the most logical explanation in the most objective way possible, but simply explaining what we see, what it could be and couldn't be. Very convincing video if you ask me.

posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 09:43 PM
Germany was funded big time, so much so it went out of control.
Let say the darkside took over some of the funds.

If the original development of secret technologies in Germany
was envisioned and completed along with huge amounts of money
also going into arms and war, not too many know about it now or
are working with it.

As far as the ufos go I can't agree on the film dialogue
from 55min to !:05 except he mentioned Tesla's patents.

Our technology, chips and things, most likely up graded the ufo
navigation systems. (The history of semiconductors to ic even
wikipedia hopefully can get that right. Not Aliens teching us anything
as supposed in the film.)

Lasar beams have been sent through telescopes to bounce off the
moon. (Don't think we plasma beam ufos, ufos are off the Air Force
hit list due to Mantell incident and other arrangements.)

The ufo pilots seem to know whats going on with our space program,
they listen to the radio or get inside information on coordinates.
Circle formations are well known.
Orbs caught near earth travel on google satellite:
The straight line paths are plotted.

Thunderstorms are a problem because with big spiral coils on
the floor they will jump around, so they go above the storm.
Imagine what an idea that energy is being absorbed, they are
under their own power, atomic like the sun with Helium.

Nothing like filming without knowing.
Bad as not telling is the same as not lying.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 01:18 PM
Life is short - don't waste your precious seconds on such puerile nonsense as 'Secret Space'.
These types of cheap, easily debunked "NASA-are-evil-liars" videos are an insult to the men and women who, past and present, have helped achieve incredible things.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 03:13 PM
I own a DVD of"Secret Space" not a bad film/doc, but when David icke tells us views i think he tends to focus on the wars and how all the people who are involved in the running of the war machine he seems to be convinced that a few very high up families including the royal's were some how in control of the whole WW2 even stating how bush snr supplied oil to keep the war going.

And he seems to think the"illuminati" are in on everything and they run our lives,a bit over the top in my oppinion. I did enjoy the doc as i found it covered a lot of separate topics and different views on subjects shown.

There is a channel totally dedicated to what is on the DVD online, it's called the enigma channel,but you must pay to enter the site so i don't bother,also the background music effects of bells "tinging" and "chanting" was a bit off putting. And most of the info is common knowledge in the UFO circle.

top topics


log in